Talk:Wikipedia

Full Protection edit request on 22 June 2015

Perhaps full protection is an order or anything higher? — 24.2.133.105 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that would go against the goal of Wikipedia, allowing only admins to edit info about themselves etc? Eddowii (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lih and the future of Wikipedia

Andrew Lih is an expert on Wikipedia and he fears a threat to Wikipedia's future. I put Lih's opinion onto the article making it clear it's his opinion. Below is what I wrote. This needs to be in the open.

This is an opinion and should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.126.18 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing with mobile phones

Andrew Lih maintains editing Wikipedia with smart phones is difficult and this discourages new potential contributors. Lih claims several years running the number of Wikipedia editors has been falling and alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors how to resolve this. Andrew Lih fears these two situations could imperil Wikipedia’s long term future.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia New article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

please add Category:2001 introductions because it was created in 2001.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 216.186.185.230 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: This is a general question that's more for other passing editors. This page is already in Category:Internet properties established in 2001, which is a sub-category of Category:2001 establishments. How does "establishments" differ from "introductions", and would it be redundant to include both categories? Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if we could say that "introductions" might take place months or even years before something (a sports event, a political entity, and so on) becomes "established"; however, looking at the Category:2001 introductions vs. Category:2001 establishments, it is difficult to see anything but redundancy and the need to merge them. I could be wrong. – Paine  15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I agree with Mz7's suggestion that it would be redundant. Bazj (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia scope change

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia to change its scope -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian ban of the website

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/russias-ban-on-wikipedia-ends-as-abruptly-as-it-started/

What do you think of including this? The Russian government stopped access to all Wikipedia sites yesterday but reversed the block after a day. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it was only one day I don't think that it is necessary to add.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance section

I was looking over the section on Governance and was troubled by the lack of 1) comprehensive information about the various formal roles which exist on Wikipedia and 2) criticism of the system as it currently exists. Hoping to fill that in a bit, I drew up this mock draft of a new Governance section, but I thought it best to submit it for review and revision before making any significant changes myself. Feel free to comment and modify as you see fit! Bonjourleworld (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to gently integrating some (or all) of this language/content into the article. I want to make sure I won't be stepping on anyone's toes here! Bonjourleworld (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Intro

In principle, Wikipedia’s system of government operates off of a base of equal and open access, as well as consensus-driven democratic decision-making. Conventional managerial systems often seen in the worlds of business and politics are absent. However, a collection of "formal roles" fulfilling certain functions and providing general oversight have led some to speak of a "parahierarchy" within the community. Three primary roles exist—each one with a greater level of permissions than the last—, as well as several other permissions sets assigned automatically to Stewards and selectively to Bureaucrats and Administrators. Criticism against this system have been leveled by academics and community members alike. These have principally targeted "lack of clarity" concerning governance structures and the concentration of power in the hands of an emerging elite.

Primary Roles

Stewards

At the top of this organizational structure are the stewards. As of February 2015, they are 37 stewards active across all Wikimedia projects. Elections for new stewards are held on an annual or bi-annual basis and users from across the entire Wikimedia community are eligible to vote. Prospective stewards must obtain an 80% approval rating in order to be selected.

Candidates for stewardship must be administrators on at least one Wikimedia project and are generally expected to have had a history of inter-project work and experience holding positions of trust. Name visibility is a significant asset, as is multilingualism and fluency in English. Of 37 stewards, only one is monolingual in English.

Stewards are granted the capacity to "perform any task that any other user group can" and at their own discretion. However, they are obliged to follow Wikipedia policy in doing so. Their permissions extend across all Wikipedia language versions and Wikimedia projects. As stewards are expected to act as an independent voice representing the entire Wikimedia community, they are restricted from employing their enhanced editing rights on their project of origin.

Because of their high-profile role and extensive permissions, Stewards are required to provide proof of identity and documentation demonstrating they exceed the age of 18 to the Wikimedia Foundation to obtain their position.

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats are administrators tasked with the power to alter user permissions and usernames. Their primary role is to assign administrative permissions to users approved through the RfA process for administrator status. Bureaucrats are not entitled to use their own discretion in assigning enhanced user rights, but rather are required to bow to community consensus as expressed through voting procedure. While they play an important role in the internal workings of the Wikipedia community, their job tends to be simplistic.

Even in major projects, the number of bureaucrats tends to be small, the only exception being the English version on which there are 32 as of September 2015. Candidates for bureaucrat-ship are elected according to the same 80% support benchmark as for stewards. Because bureaucrats do not fill a time or labor-intensive function, each project only requires so many bureaucrats. As a result, the number of applications to RfB and the number selected have been in decline for some time.

Administrators

Administrators are the front lines of Wikipedia governance. They are comprised of "experienced users" whose job it is to monitor and regulate community activity; this applies to both article editing and behind-the-scenes interaction. Administrators have the ability, among others, to ban/block users, rollback edits, and apply protections to articles. Candidates for higher levels of responsibility are drawn from this pool of users.

Any registered user has the right to request adminship through the RfA voting process. However, successful applications almost always meet certain expectations. Applicants are traditionally users with good standing in the community who have a diverse background in vandalism control, article contribution, and Wikipedia policy formation. The number of edits the prospective administrator has made also weighs heavily on the selection process, being the most common reason for an unsuccessful request.

Administrators perform a very broad range of jobs across a single Wikipedia project. As a result, the number which each project has does not tend to reach a de facto cap as there’s always more administrative work to be done. That being said, the number of new applications for adminship has declined so significantly in past years that the phenomenon has attracted the attention of major news outlets and information science researchers alike.

Specialized Functions

Checkusers & Oversighters

CheckUsers are members of the Wikipedia community with the ability to view the IP addresses of users. Their job is to determine whether or not a single individual is editing on multiple accounts, typically to better identify and deter article vandalism.

Oversighters are granted the power to conceal past edits and the usernames associated with them in an article’s revision history. Once done, concealed edits can only be viewed by other oversighters and stewards (who automatically are granted oversight permissions). The process by which an oversighter expunges a past revision is referred to as "suppression" and may only be used under a select and enumerated set of circumstances. Accountability is ensured by other oversighters and the Arbitration Committee.

Although no formal rule requires it, checkusers and oversighters are by tradition administrators. However, not all administrators are checkusers or oversighters. To whom these responsibilities are assigned is determined by the Arbitration Committee. By virtue of their access to sensitive information and the consequent need for discretion, users with these permissions are required—like stewards—to provide evidence of their identity and age to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Rollbackers

After registered users, rollbackers are the first rung upwards in the Wikipedia governance system. These are users entrusted with the ability to roll back a page to an original version with the click of a button. Rollbackers’ number one priority is to identify and reverse vandalism in a timely manner. As such, projects tend to have a large number of users with this permission and expected qualifications are not high. Rollbackers are not appointed by consensus but by administrators who themselves have rollback abilities.

Criticism

Most criticisms of Wikipedia management target problems stemming from the project’s ostensibly-structureless governance system. Wikipedia hosts a vast archive of information and an equally massive community of editors constantly adding to, modifying, and removing from it. When combined with a lack of clarity about who controls what, one critic asserts that the need for regulation simply outstrips the ability of administrators to provide it.

Vandalism control, in particular, has represented a major problem for the project. To combat it, various policing measures have been established over its lifetime which, in turn, leave a great deal of discretion to administrators and rollbackers. Some critics have noted this allows for the disproportionate "accumulation of power in one section of the Wikipedia community." They go on to say that administrators have consequently become not only "enforcers of policy," but have also begun to make "‘moral’ decisions about user behavior."

Researchers have observed that members of the community at several different levels share outside critics’ concerns about Wikipedia’s system of control. One unregistered user was cited as saying that founder Jimmy Wales created the "structureless of tyranny," another comments on the relative lack of permission-holder accountability systems.

A culture of technocracy has been labeled a developing problem for the Wikipedia community. According to one researcher, the complex system of rules and regulations, in addition to the concentration of power in the hands of those who best understand them, creates an environment in which "editors are dominating the process, to the detriment of the more expert contributors of articles, and growth has stopped.

References

Conflict of interest?

Doesn't the existence of this article contradict Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest? Is it all possible to contribute to this article without having a "close connection with the subject"? Finsternish (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Going back through the archives, I can tell this subject has been beaten to death. In fact, I'm quite sure that you're going to receive a comment to the effect of "Look back through the archives, we've already agreed this is fine." However, I've done some pretty extensive searching and I'm inclined to agree with your objection, despite the many arguments that have been raised to support the existence of this article. Some users have cited the lack of financial incentive motivating bias. Yet, such a motive is not required by Wikipedia's own conflict of interest rules for a COI to exist. Others have asserted that, given Wikipedia's size and importance, failing to provide an article about it would also be self-reference. Ok, but self-reference and conflict of interest are not precisely the same issue. Still others have claimed the Wikipedia community is the most reliable source of information on itself. By that argument, COI's are non-issues as those most closely connected with the subject at hand (i.e. those with COI's) should be the ones writing about them. The most convincing argument I came across was that a COI does not exist because the interest of Wikipedia contributors (i.e. to create accurate, unbiased content) align with the creation of an accurate, unbiased article on Wikipedia itself. However, that position neglects the extremely high likelihood that contributors would have other interests, namely to project the best possible image of the project to the world at the cost of omitting information about its less rosy qualities. I'm not necessarily opposed to a Wikipedia page on Wikipedia myself, but I think this topic needs to be more critically addressed, preferably with an essay or other statement of policy making an argument more convincing and better-reasoned than those provided thus far. I've seen at least one user claim that, if bias was a problem with this article, one would see more discussion of it on this page. However, I believe the very fact that this discussion reemerges time and time again is evidence of precisely that. Dismissing further discussion on this topic by saying its an issue that's already been decided starts to resemble dogma, something which I think most Wikipedians would agree is contrary to the project's aspirations and values. --Bonjourleworld (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I am not inherently opposed to a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia either, but if it will remain then the policy on conflicts of interest should be revised in such a way that it treats every subject equally. The same rules should apply to everything; otherwise you end up with a glaring defect at the very heart of Wikipedia: it claims neutrality while practicing the exact opposite. This is about the integrity of the project. Finsternish (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been beaten to death multiple times. Nobody with any financial interest in Wikipedia is supposed to edit the article, nor is there, really, any evidence that any supposed 'COI' has had any negative effect on the balance of the article. In fact the article includes criticism of Wikipedia pretty much to a fault. And if, even so, there was a major problem with it somewhere (where?), even if it was being deliberately excluded from Wikipedia, news of this would appear in the press pretty soon. Wikipedia is sufficiently high profile journalists would publish; they love that kind of thing.GliderMaven (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious effect that this conflict of interest has is that it makes it obvious that Wikipedia cannot subject articles about itself to the same level of scrutiny that it subjects every other article to. Which points to a broader lack of neutrality: there is nothing at all neutral about treating high-profile subjects by different standards than low-profile subjects, especially when that high-profile subject is yourself. There is nothing more obviously indicative of a conflict of interest than the fact that this article, and this article alone, is allowed to violate Wikipedia's policies. This would, of course, be a very boring subject for the press... the press would rather report that Wikipedia had done something blatantly sinister. It's not about what you can or cannot get away with, though; it's about integrity. Finsternish (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies something to have its own Wikipedia article?

Hi Ive been using Wikipedia for a long time but Ive just newly created my first page on Solus Linux. I`m wondering what are the main criteria for qualifying a place, person, organization, historical event, etc... for its own Wiki page. For example there`s a very small business, a bodega as they are called, in my city Waterbury, CT. I feel making a page on the bodega (shop) and the history of it`s owners would be a cool page to have to link from the Waterbury Connecticut Wiki article. If I were to interview the shop owners, take photos, etc, would that qualify for a Wikipedia article?UnitedStatesCentralIntelligenceAgency (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability is the main criteria. But you interviewing and taking pictures would be original research which is not allowed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

Could you change the external link for (http://wikipedia.org) to internal link (en.wikipedia.org)?
Or possibly

Languages

• English
• ...

114.240.194.132 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion in the archive here. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

wikipedia INFORMATION NETWORKING SITE.. 59.99.68.225 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. There is nothing meaningful about what you have written. Deli nk (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation link needs correction

---

Hi folks. Reading about this I found this.

1-- In section "Scientific use":

"(...) In particular, it commonly serves as a target knowledge base for the entity linking problem, which is then called "wikification",[343]..."

The link for this citation opens citation no. 343 correctly, but the PDF link is wrong.

Old link http://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/papers/mihalcea.cikm07.pdf

New link http://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/NLP/papers/Mihalcea-2007-Wikify-Linking_Documents_to_Encyclopedic.pdf

 Done Finished #1, working on #2

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

---

2-- Also the link references Citation no. 349 which doesn't exist (points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-wikify-349), even though it does open Cit. 343.

Cheers--NachoLibre2013 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NachoLibre2013, I believe I was able to fix issue #1. Please verify. There are 347 references in the reference list, plus there are are 6 ref notes, for a total of 353. ProveIt reports 351 refs. Many of them uneditable with the ProveIt tool. reFILL finds no ref errors. Citation Bot finds no ref errors. I'm not spotting anything.

Can you elaborate on the issue a bit more? For now, I am vexed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit! Please excuse my lack of knowledge about the way Wiki counts citations, I thought there was meant to be a 1 to 1 correspondence between the hover text no. and the actual citation no., hence my 2nd suggestion, but I infer from your response that this is not the case. I'll learn about the Wiki citations system next time :o). Have a great day!--NachoLibre2013 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015

Good day ! :-) Please consider changing the name "Wikipedia" to mean something relevent and goodItalic text, in the language in the particular page ?!

14.97.64.110 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Maps

I like to use Wikipedia to research lots of history but my biggest complaint is the lack of maps. When I want to read about, for example, Moldavia, the first thing I'd like to see is where I'm reading about! Unfortunately, most of the Wikipedia sites don't even have maps or if they do they are buried deep in the article. Solri89 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

wikipedia has a new logo please see the top its has a banner saying 5,000,000 articles 65.175.243.206 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Your point being? For your information, it's not Wikipedia's permanent logo. It's just a temporary logo to celebrate the milestone. Chamith (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Refutation of Silly Misconception

Don't you think that somewhere in the intro section it should be EXPLICITLY stated that "Wikipedia" does not mean "Wicked Encyclopedia", which is a persistent and long-lasting misconception especially among the computer- and internet-illiterate? While no regular user of the internet still believes this (I hope), many many people who do not use the internet regularly still believe this. I have met several of them just over the past few months. I think stating this next to the section that talks about the true origins of the name "Wikipedia" would be useful. Also, the section does not define what a "Wiki" is, and it should because many who are not regular users of the net have no idea what that word means. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.200.193 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article addresses possible misconceptions as to the etymology of "Wikipedia" by providing it's actual etymology. To quote the article: "Sanger coined its name, a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia." Openflower (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

...and my second point, about the article not defining the word "wiki"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.200.193 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article already has a footnote in the sentence that Openflower quoted that explains the meaning of "wiki". Alternatively, readers can just follow the link to wiki in the sentence if they don't know what it means. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

Under the section "Impact," there is a picture with the caption, "Wikipedians mmeting after Awards ceremony." Please change this caption to "Wikipedians meeting after Awards ceremony," because the word "meeting" is currently misspelled. 72.179.62.139 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Founded in 1846, the Smithsonian is the world's largest museum and research complex, consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoological Park, and nine research facilities. The Smithsonian has a center for specialized technical collection research and conservation for all Smithsonian museums and collections, Museum Conservation Institute (MCI). MCI brings unique analytical capabilities to Smithsonian researchers, including a central mass spectroscopy instrument core and advanced technological capabilities, and these services are available to Smithsonian units at no charge. In addition to having the MCI as a conservation resource, each of the 19 museums and galleries have internal conservation staff that provides myriad services; e.g. conducting research, responding to threats that will affect cultural heritage objects, developing and using less invasive and less damaging materials and procedures for collection conservation, providing technical information, advice and assistance primarily on matters pertaining to the museums and galleries areas of expertise, etc.

References

See Also

Museum Conservation Institute

gom:Wikipedia

On the left hand side, under the Languages section, there is a gom:Wikipedia. On clicking it, it goes to link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gom:Wikipedia. Why do we have it?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

Hi, first time editor on a big protected page.

I just want to change the colors on the Language Editions bar graph. Right now, they are all dark purple and blue, and make the blue hyperlink text impossible to read. I'd like to change them all to be light green. Safibn (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone attempting to fix this should consult WP:COLOR. Specifically: "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The default link colors can be found at Help:Link color. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: @Safibn: thanks for your suggestion, I agree the colours in this graph are awful. However, this is tricky, but this is not the correct place to request a change, since the graph actually lives in a template on another page, Template:Largest Wikipedias/graph, and is linked into this page with {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}} found in this page's source code, and that template itself calls a number of other templates to calculate the colour based on a formula I'm not familiar with. Anyway, the change can't be made from this page. I think the best course of action is to request this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Please see this thread in a minute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Update: the village pump thread got buried and didn't draw any attention, so I've deleted the formula and changed the background colour to light gray. Changing to light green was problematic because there's a script commonly used by editors which colours links depending on the target, and links to redirects are light green, so if the background was light green then they would disappear. There would be the same problem for several other colours, so I just made it grayscale. Hope that works, and Safibn thanks for the suggestion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

103.46.203.200 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Blank request, marking as answered to close -- samtar ^whisper 10:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

I wish to edit a Wikipedia page that explains, in detail, American Girl Group; "TLC"'s upcoming 2016 studio album. Oohonthetlctip (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an article for the album yet, but TLC (group) should be the place to go for now. It's not protected at this time Cannolis (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I wanna share something on wiki but how? Dyari hassan (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please ask these questions on the Help Desk page. This page is NOT a forum about Wikipedia itself, it is a talk page about the Wikipedia entry about Wikipedia. Thank you. Smock42 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

I would like request access to edit this page so that I may add more in detail information about our president. I would like to tell the world a little bit more about Barack Obama. 17:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The dimension of Kailash Prakash Stadium Ground?

Why there's information about the dimension of Kailash Prakash Stadium Ground on the main template?? Keivan.f^Talk 09:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Remove the ";14 years ago" or update it, since it's been 15 years now. It's a bit redundant imho. Bladorthin (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It should update automatically - I've tried a nul edit to try and nudge it - but that hasn't worked. Rather than removing the automatic updating, I think we should wait until it does it itself. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it takes about one day in order for the {{start date and age}} template to update, since "January 15, 2001 (2001-01-15)" currently now shows the date as 15 years old, not 14 anymore. 96.255.166.6 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Just a simple date change. Launched January 15, 2001; 14 years ago TO Launched January 15, 2001; 15 years ago HeroCorey (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a bug in the {{Start date and age}} template, which is somehow calculating it as "14 years" (eg. January 15, 2000 (2000-01-15), January 15, 2001 (2001-01-15), January 15, 2002 (2002-01-15)). I'll raise it on the template talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I've stepped it down to just a {{start date}} template, if {{start date and age}} is generating a factual error today. --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090216015857/http://yupnet.org:80/zittrain/archives/16 to http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330141810/http://www.grillini.it:80/show.php?4885 to http://www.grillini.it/show.php?4885
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220095907/http://brandchannel.com:80/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352 to http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203021430/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov:80/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101126184904/http://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html to http://www.faz.net/s/RubCF3AEB154CE64960822FA5429A182360/Doc~E7A20980B9C0D46E99A9F60BC09506343~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060116022451/http://www.techcentralstation.com:80/111504A.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107052908/http://www.emorywheel.com:80/detail.php?n=17902 to http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=17902

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir/madam,

Thank you for this wonderful information source. In your section on the Vedas, it is mentioned that these scriptures were compiled around 1,500BC by Veda Vyasa. In the section on Veda Vyasa, it is mentioned that Vyasa lived in the third millennium BC. Could you please clarify that this information is correct.

Thank You, Vijay Singh Wikipedoa Subscriber as vijays710@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakcosingh (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

id like to fix this page 204.81.64.175 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Does not include a "complete and specific description of the request". — xaosflux ^Talk 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia , you don't look a day over marvelous

Wikipedia is POWER at your fingertips. Knowledge IS power..that is why to know EVERYTHING, would be death. Imagine a life, where nothing more is new & there is no question you don't know the answer to...That , would be death of power. Happy Birthday Wikipedia !!! ( I don't have a Twitter social media account, ergo... I couldn't share my 💜 for Wikipedia ! This is why I've added this message. -27) SweetLime27 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for keeping the gift of learning, ALIVE... If we only spent more time on sites like this, as opposed to all the Social Networking that is basically a platform for our EGO. We post our faces, our meals , & our bragging rights. I'm not going to learn one VALUABLE thing from any of those half eaten burrito pics, but I WILL learn something from any number of the pages in Wikipedia ! Keep on teaching .....and reminding us that the World is far more united and yes, even sharing that lunch pic selfie is far more than what we could connect to a few decades ago! Keep up the awesome! SweetLime27 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Jacsjx (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No clear request was made. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Graphic overload

I had removed several graphs that simply overload the page with a confusion of images. The purpose of graphs is so that people can more clearly see the data, but I feel that the plethora of graphs makes it impossible to get a clear view. They all don't even fit on the page. @Engineering Guy: thinks I'm wrong and has deleted my removals. See [2]

I'll suggest that folks look at Edward Tufte and perhaps data visualization. The current page would be an excellent example for Tufte to show (according to his ideas) what *not* to do with graphs. Please see the sections on Wikipedia#Language_editions and Wikipedia#Wikiprojects.2C_and_assessments_of_articles.27_importance_and_quality, pure overkill. I hadn't deleted the multi-pie charts File:User - demography.svg in the Language section, but they probably should go as well.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia#Language_editions section, I can agree to replacing the logarithmic bar chart (showing top 20 language editions) and pie chart (showing top 10 language editions) with a single bar chart or pie chart, provided:

• it shows data of top 20 language editions,
• areas (of bars in bar chart, or circle sectors in pie chart) are directly proportional to numbers of articles, and
• it is automatically updated on a daily basis.

The current bar chart does not meet all the above requirements (since the bar areas are logarithmic, and not directly proportional). The current pie chart also does not meet all 3 requirements (since it can show maximum 10 data points, not 20). So, I think both should be retained. No harm in that.

In the Wikipedia#Wikiprojects,_and_assessments_of_articles'_importance_and_quality section, the table alone shows only numerical data. It is difficult to gauge any interesting or meaningful information or pattern when data is presented in this format. Graphical representation of data in pie charts and bar charts helps to see the information clearly. I do not think it is an "overload" or "overkill". It all fits on the page, at least when seen on desktop. But yes, improvements would be made if these pie charts and bar chart were also automatically updated daily.

Regarding Edward Tufte: we do not know what his opinion about this page is. And anyway, different experts may have different opinions on the same thing. It is for Wikipedia editors to decide, by consensus and following rules and guidelines, what should and what should not appear on this encyclopedia's webpages.

--Engineering Guy (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I have taken out the following:

Software changes were left open to explore ways of increasing the appeal of Wikipedia to attract women readers to register as editors, and to increase the potential of existing editors to nominate more women administrators to enhance the 'management' presence of women at Wikipedia.

References

It hardly hangs together as a sentence, and in the context of the previous sentence is almost meaningless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

113.199.255.197 (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC) what is main difference between file access component and database access component

Not done: Were you looking for the reference desk perhaps? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This was really, really fun reading: bigger than The Donald.

Headline-1: On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate

• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html

QUOTE: "For a website with no paid writing staff that is still overcoming an out-of-date reputation for inaccuracy, Wikipedia punches above its weight. As a primer for just about any topic, it is especially powerful in an election season: On the day of the 2012 election, Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s entries alone were read 1.6 million times.

The online encyclopedia famously allows the public to edit it, but it also publishes reams of data about itself: about what articles used to say, who added or deleted passages and how many people read the articles.

Page-view statistics, for example, show that on some primary days, Wikipedia may be able to predict the winner.

Presidential Election 2016 Donald Trump’s Immigration Message May Resound in New Hampshire FEB 5 Our Man in New Hampshire: The Exit of Martin O’Malley FEB 5 Who Won the Debate? Critics Are as Split as the Candidates FEB 5 Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street FEB 5 Transcript of the Democratic Presidential Debate FEB 5.

Editing archives show debates happening almost in real time, with contributors fighting over facts and policies as if they were the candidates themselves."

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

irc

what was the irc channel for this again? SuperCofee (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@SuperCofee: There are multiple IRC channels related to Wikipedia; WP:IRC has more information about those channels. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

content

how can I edit the page Vaibhavaggarwal612 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430201444/http://chnm.gmu.edu:80/resources/essays/d/42 to http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209203337/http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

Please remove the wikipedia web address as we are on wikipedia 65.175.243.206 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)